Carolyn Brunner v. Carolyn Colvin
651 F. App'x 699
9th Cir.2016Background
- Carolyn J. Brunner appealed a district court judgment remanding her Title II disability insurance benefits claim for further proceedings.
- The ALJ made an adverse credibility finding about Brunner’s symptom testimony but failed to specify which parts were discredited or give clear and convincing reasons.
- The ALJ’s RFC assessment and the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert relied in part on the adverse credibility finding.
- The district court remanded for further proceedings to resolve inconsistencies between Brunner’s testimony and the objective medical evidence and to revisit RFC and step-five findings.
- Brunner also argued the ALJ erred by not discussing an examining physician’s opinion and a treating chiropractor’s opinion; the district court did not resolve that issue because it remanded on other agreed grounds.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s remand order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Brunner’s symptom testimony | ALJ failed to identify which testimony was not credible and did not provide specific, clear and convincing reasons | ALJ cited permissible considerations with some record support | Court: ALJ’s deficiency warranted remand; inconsistencies must be resolved before disability determination |
| Whether RFC and step-five findings are undermined by improper credibility evaluation | RFC and VE hypothetical relied on flawed credibility assessment; findings therefore unreliable | RFC and step-five based on ALJ’s assessment (but assessment flawed) | Court: RFC and step-five are among issues to be resolved on remand |
| Whether district court implicitly accepted Brunner’s claim that ALJ erred by not discussing two medical opinions | Brunner contends remand order shows district court accepted that ALJ committed reversible error regarding the two opinions | District court remanded on other agreed grounds and did not rule on those specific opinion-errors | Court: District court was not required to decide the merits of that argument; remand on other grounds was proper |
| Whether remand was an abuse of discretion | Brunner argued remand was unnecessary or improper | Government supported remand for clarification and resolution of inconsistencies | Court: Affirmed district court; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for remand and credibility issues)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirement for specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (permissible considerations for adverse credibility determinations)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (need to resolve inconsistencies between testimony and objective evidence; effect on RFC/step-five)
- Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court need not address unrequired issues when remanding on other grounds)